## Facts

- Maureen Anderson sued Paul Mergenhagen after a prolonged dispute connected to Maureen’s husband’s prior marriage to Karyn Anderson, who was involved with Mergenhagen.
- After Maureen married Dick Anderson, Maureen alleged she became the target of harassment connected to animosity arising from the prior marriage’s collapse.
- Maureen claimed that, in 2003–2005, Mergenhagen repeatedly waited near the entrance of her gated community and followed her by car when she left.
- She alleged he took photographs of her and her vehicle, laughed at her, made obscene gestures, and acted in a manner intended to ensure she noticed his presence.
- She alleged he also appeared at locations where she was present (including public places and parking lots) and engaged in similar conduct.
- Maureen testified the conduct caused fear and distress, including fear for her safety and that of her young children, and led her to alter or abandon errands.
- She brought claims for (1) civil stalking protective relief under OCGA § 16-5-94, (2) invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion), and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court denied Maureen’s summary-judgment motion on stalking (setting it for a bench trial), granted Mergenhagen summary judgment on invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and granted Mergenhagen’s motion to quash a subpoena.
- Maureen appealed the denial of summary judgment on stalking, the grant of summary judgment on invasion of privacy, and the order quashing the subpoena.

## Issues

1. Whether Maureen Anderson was entitled to summary judgment on her civil stalking claim under OCGA § 16-5-94 (incorporating OCGA § 16-5-90).
2. Whether summary judgment for Mergenhagen was proper on the invasion-of-privacy claim on the theory that intrusion upon seclusion requires physical intrusion into a private place and cannot be based on conduct occurring in public.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting Mergenhagen’s motion to quash Anderson’s subpoena.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of Anderson’s motion for summary judgment on the stalking claim.
- The court reversed the grant of summary judgment to Mergenhagen on the invasion-of-privacy (intrusion upon seclusion) claim.
- The court affirmed the order granting Mergenhagen’s motion to quash the subpoena.
- The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where genuine issues of material fact exist; evidence is construed in favor of the nonmovant, who receives the benefit of reasonable doubts and inferences.
- Whether conduct constitutes stalking under OCGA § 16-5-90 (as incorporated for civil protective relief under OCGA § 16-5-94) commonly turns on fact questions, including the nature, purpose, and effect of the alleged course of conduct.
- Intrusion upon seclusion in Georgia is not limited to physical entry into a private place; wrongful intrusion may include unreasonable, highly offensive surveillance or prying into another’s private activities.
- Repeated following, lying in wait, and overt photographing intended to harass or intimidate may permit a jury finding of intrusion upon seclusion even when the conduct occurs in public spaces.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over discovery matters; an order quashing a subpoena is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Georgia Court of Appeals held that factual disputes prevented summary judgment for the plaintiff on civil stalking, but reinstated the invasion-of-privacy claim by rejecting a categorical rule requiring physical intrusion into a private place, while leaving the trial court’s discovery ruling quashing a subpoena undisturbed.


Anderson v. Mergenhagen, 642 S.E.2d 105 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)